Yes, pretty much. As for the background check suggestion, while I am not familiar with the specific policies the USCCB has proposed, I might support enhancing the categories of people who should be barred from owning a gun. I don’t, however, necessarily trust the political proposals emanating from the USCCB.
I have no idea what is meant by “limitations to high-powered weapons”. A hunting rifle is a high-powered weapon. Are they talking about controlling magazine size? Folding stocks? I seriously doubt that restrictions on the physical structure of a gun would have any affect whatever on the kinds of shootings we have so recently experienced.
As for more laws criminalizing gun traffic, we should look at how well that’s working in Chicago. I wonder that people still believe that laws will control the lawless.
Increased safety measures on guns? Really? How would that have played out in Texas? The killer had all the time in the world to bypass the “safety measures” on his gun. It was only the good samaritan whose response would have been delayed, depending on the measures that are being considered.
Interestingly, the suggestion about access to mental health care touches (if only incidentally) on a real problem: access to guns by the mentally unstable. It may not be as politically appealing to suggest linking mental health data bases with background checks, but that’s an area that might actually show promise.
On the whole, I’m with those who look at another political pamphlet from the USCCB and say: who cares?